Debunking Snopes' debunking of the most popular Sandy Hook investigation video

The following video investigates the alleged mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary on December 14, 2012:





The video was reviewed by the popular mythbusting website, Snopes. 



Snopes rejects the video's claim that the "official Sandy Hook story" is inconsistent and nebulous. 
However, we still do not have the suspect's motive, visable evidence of bloodshed, or an explanation as to why so many claims about the shooting have been inconsistent - both from official sources and the media. Indeed, we've heard several claims regarding the number of suspects involved in the shooting, the identity and appearance of the prime suspect and 
the quantity and variety of weapons allegedly used in the shooting. The media also had different reports regarding whether the father of the suspect survived, whether or not the suspect argued with school officials one day before the shooting, whether the alleged shooter entered the school in normal fashion or whether the principal survived. Sandy Hook school nurse Sarah Cox was even quoted saying that the mother of the primary suspect was a kindergarten teacher when in fact the suspect's mother was never even employed at the school. Moreover, nothing has linked the suspect to the school or the shooting except the media's claim that he is linked. Small wonder the public is skeptical.




The video also investigates the possibility of "multiple shooters", but Snopes claims there is no evidence to support a "multiple shooter" theory. According to Snopes, the man
detained by police outside the school was released and the "multiple shooter" theory ends here. The man, identified as Chris Manfredonia, had entered school premises to try to reach his daughter, according to reports. But more than one man was detained on the scene, and Snopes fails to examine whether Manfredonia was the man captured on helicopter video who ran into the woods and, according to police, was "charging" at them. This is the man who has stirred up a great deal of public suspicion, particularly because he may or may not have been "camo pants man", who we are told was an off-duty special ops agent who also just happened to be carusing by the school when the alleged shooting occurred.




Snopes dismisses the video's contention that the car allegedly driven by the shooting suspect can be traced back to a "Christopher Rodia". Snopes says the mixup is attributable to the fact that one police officer had inquired about the suspect vehicle on the police radio at the same time that another officer had radioed in for information on "Christopher Rodia", who had been stopped for a traffic violation. The transmissions overlapped on the same radio frequency, so it sounds like they go together, argues Snopes, citing an article in the CT Post. However, Snopes and the CT Post claim that the car allegedly used by the shooting suspect to get to the school belonged to a "family member" of the shooter. The only way to confirm an owner of a car is to identify to whom the car is registered. So, if it is a "family member", we should be able to identify whether it was the mother, father or a relative, but strangely, nobody can do this. If the media is just assuming it belonged to a family member to write a story...well then, small wonder the public is reluctant to believe everything that is said about Sandy Hook.




Snopes does not agree with the video's contention that, after the alleged shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary looked more like a movie set than an actual crime scene.
But here's what Sandy Hook Elementary looked like: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX2ITHV6k-U). The road is jammed and emergency vehicles could not have passed through. There are no evacuated school children to be found. The only group of people anywhere in sight are the individuals who are walking around in circles at the nearby firehouse. This is where the ambulances are parked, incidentally, with their doors left open. The paramedics are doing nothing. Where are the bloody victims, active ambulances, and other concrete evidence of human emotion in the midst of disaster response? All of these questions come to mind when one compares the Sandy Hook videos to the footage captured after other school shootings, such as the shooting at Columbine (http://youtube/AQ7BA0lj2u0), or the school shooting in Brazil (http://youtube/3id88P6xlUk).




Snopes admits that the memorial page for Sandy Hook was listed on Google with a creation date prior to the shooting. However, Snopes says that this was merely an archiving flaw on Google's behalf. Snopes demonstrates how the same flaw can occur in the archiving of other pages on Google. But a host of Facebook posts, web pages and even tweets on Twitter have been found memorializing the shooting on dates which pre-date the actual shooting. Would Snopes say an archiving flaw is responsible here, too? (see: here). 





The Snopes report concludes that "the video does not document that the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School were a staged hoax." However, the video never claimed to document anything; it merely analyzes the claims, coming from official sources and mainstream media, regarding what is said to have happened. 


While some suspicious points have been cleared up by Snopes, others have not - some were not even touched upon in the film to be addressed. For example, once the alleged first surviving casualty was revealed (Natalie Hammond), why did her struggle to recover not become a major news story? We've seen it again and again, most recently after the Columbine shooting - should we assume that the media simply had a change of heart?We still do not know the name of the second surviving casualty, and the media has come up empty in this regard. Perhaps the press got tired of investigating the story but such behavior would be highly uncharacteristic of anybody in that profession.

Also
 puzzling: the absence of photos from bystanders, the Sandy Hook memorial site using a random girl's photo from Google images to represent a victim of the shooting, the "100+ rounds fired" in the "official Sandy Hook story", the lack of security footage where we are told the suspect had tried to purchase a weapon and, lastly, the mystery as to why cars with bullet holes were found in back of the Sandy Hook parking lot, facing away from the school. All of these issues are elaborated on in the following video:






While none of this is the "smoking gun" that turns the official Sandy Hook story on its head, one must ask: with whom does the burden of proof lie - with those who claim an event happened a certain way, or those who remain skeptical? For example, if I want you to believe that I am in Alaska right now, is it up to me to prove it, or up to you to find evidence to the contrary?

In any case, people should not be ridiculed for wanting irrefutable evidence, particularly after the Bay of Pigs, Watergate, Vietnam, the Iran Contra affair and, most recently, the media blitz about Iraq and its alleged "weapons of mass destruction". I can still recall George W. Bush standing before the press, trying to use the American adage "fool me once.." in a populist speech to get support for attacking Iraq in lieu of 9/11. Our eyes are wide open because we are waiting for those weapons of mass destruction to justify the lost lives. Don't expect us to close them.

Comments